Mosher on Gavin’s “Frustration”

Mosher writes in:

Gavin explained his frustration stemmed from people asking the same question over and over when it was already answered. He then reveals something new and closes the thread. We carry on here with one unknown guy trying to defend mann.

Steve can be like that too. Just try pushing on the nature of the red noise in his hockey stick testing in GRL05. Even when he has a genuine flaw in Mike’s work, he exaggerates it’s effect. Then when called on it, Steve evades disucssion and also diverts with the “but it’s even a flaw with simple red noise”. No duh! But he still made out his opponent’s flaw to be bigger than what it was. And he doesn’t want to admit it.

I think that Tiljander dependency significanlty weakens the claims of what was novel in PNAS (both because of the single porxy nature and because of the physical concerns woth Tilk sediments). Mike should have highlighted the issue more in his inital publication and been less defensive in discussion of it later.

I don’t think that it is a “2 plus 2” issue and failure to admit, though. How can you say, it’s 2 plus 2, then when I come along, “but you have to read 2 years of blog posts and several science papers to get the gist of it”.

To me a “2 plus 2” would be the recent reply to Smeardon where Mike’s crew misplotted, miscalculated a series in their hastily put up document. Zorita pointed it out. and they fixed it, right away.

another 2 plus 2 would be where Ritson did differencing and Mike denied it. and people cavitated. and Mike denied it. And even Mike’s own side cavitated. Then finally he admitted it. In a very opaque and non-admitting manner. To me, that is a better example of a 2 plus 2 issue, fer sure. and then some reluctance to admit it.

Steve and Ross submitted a comment where they pointed out the improper use of Tiljander. Anyone with a modicum of technical ability could understand the issue at hand. Mann et. al. replied that it was “bizarre” and that the “sign of the predictors didn’t matter”. So, here’s the question for you: could they not understand the issue which nearly everyone else seems to have no problem understanding) or were they being willfully deceptive, secure in the knowledge that the establishment would back them up no matter how extravagant the offence?

OK – let me try once more time. Do you agree that “the sign of the predictors doesn’t matter”? What sort of confidence would you have in someone who said this in relation to paleoclimate reconstructions?

I personally have less Bayesian confidence in recons where the physical nature of the proxy is weaker (i.e arbitrary sign). But I am not a statistician. I suppose that there might be some argument for doing very signal pulling types of analyses, but then, I think the authors should better highlight the issue, maybe try to defend it also, rather than just use fancy words about PCA and EIV and such. Maybe if Mike had written a paper on EIV versus CPS instead of been so fixated on the recon itself, that would have been the more useful approach. I guess it’s a pretty philosophical question of “how physical” you should be versus how proxyhopperish. I kind of recognize the dillema, but lack the personal insight to say what’s the better approach. I suspect, even were I an expert, that it would not be a straightforward problem.

Steve has a clear-cut postion on this too. The novel contribution of a paper should be methodological or ‘physical’ but not both. New claims with new methods need to be binned immediately. I see the value in this now, being guilty of hacking around myself.

At Keith’s Gavin thread, Judy Curry points to a new paper by 4 authors including Zorita, which also implicitly admits that the hockey stick is dead. But hey, it wasn’t important anyway, so who cares?
=============

Hey, kudos to scientist; he lived up to his pseudonym. At first, to me, his challenges seemed more like an expression of crankiness, but that’s not how it played out. He has really moved the story forward with some sharp observations and original insights.

I can see that he doesn’t much like Steve McI and finds me tiresome at times. That’s ok. I get annoyed too, now and then… 🙂

We don’t all have to be friends.

sci, stay well, and maybe tell your sharper friends that its okay to come over and play, sometimes. Last I checked, they hadn’t yet figured out the relevance of the EU Data Protection Directive, and its restrictions on the public release of what seems like innocuous database information (to those of us on this side of the Atlantic). Here’s a link to help them out.

I guess I’m just not as smart as you, since it’s so simple for you and since I had/ve to ask myself some questions first.

I know in the past, that people have said something was super simple and beaten it up and down and finally conceded they were wrong after a huge amount of just repeating that things were “so simple”. Jeff Id’s negative thermometers for example.

Sorry Steves, this thread is great except for the one guy, I don’t want to let this go. I don’t recall ever being crazy enough to admit that thermometers should be read upside down. I do recall TCO claiming that I was admitting that.

Someone presented an example of a linear bar heated from the end with two thermometers at one side of the bar. Conduction dominated the solution and guaranteed an extreme temperature at the far end of the bar because only the end was heated. The solution was a negative thermometer – which is cute but hardly an example of why we would read a weather thermometer upside down.

For instance, if you add heat to the center of the bar, the solution falls apart and your best estimate would be to average the thermometers – by area.

We can’t listen to you anymore. You are accused of getting something wrong, and since you are a skeptic, that disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously on anything climate or math concerning climate or anything else.

Sorry “scientist” but this one really was simple. Sediment from road construction etc altered the sediment record in a big way (evident in the plots as well as the text of Tiljander ms). Not just minor issues like all proxies have. Big contamination. This is a simple concept. Why would one even pick up this data knowing it is badly contaminated? Because it looks like a hockey stick, which is the wrong reason to pick it up.

Earlier comment stuck somewhere in the moderation queue. (Also, a comment with substance should surface on the “No-Dendro” thread, at some point.) To reprise — scientist, you lived up to your nickname. You ruffled my feathers, maybe vice-versa too, obviously no fondness for Steve McI… but you pushed in some fruitful directions and moved the story forward with fresh insights. We don’t all have agree, we don’t all have to be friends; better to attend to the science. You did that, I appreciate it.

For the CPS, he certainly either made a mistake on orientation or if he knew it and decided to flip it anyway, should have specified that he did so. And in the paper, not the SI. Of course all the treeless MWP discussion only has to do with EIV, where the algorithm just crunches and flips as it chooses.

Gavin said:
“[Response: Doesn’t follow. I can correct someone who claims that 1+1=3without reference to Russell and Whitehead. The example given by WA05 and the example given in the NAS report (fig 9.3) are both fine examples of what you get with different metrics. This really isn’t that difficult. – gavin]

The answer will be different tomorrow depending on the amount of feedback and amplification. While right now the average answer may be somewhere between 1 and 10 depending on the model output. Tomorrow it could reach 16 with proper parameter adjustments.

Thoughts. Gavin is the Fyodor Dostoyevsky of Climate Science, its first existentialist–it’s the frustration of being, over and over again. It really doesn’t matter. So, to paraphrase Dostevesky, 2 plus 2 is 4 has its place, but 2 plus 2 is 5 is equally nice. And if existence (corporeal being in the moment) is prior to essence (for example what Woody Allen calculates about being), can existentialist Gavin really believe it doesn’t matter? And was Mann being an “authentic” scientist, a practical joker, or practicing “bad faith?”

Seriously, I could do this whole dialog a lot better, with hank roberts adding google searches, and eli rabbit doing his thing, and briggs, and the electric universe guys, and lubos, and tomVonk, and kim
and what a cast of characters.

Perhaps Roger Jr.’s role would be to say something along the lines of — he’s only an expert on say … square roots. He has noted that whenever the team and its allies do an assessment they completely botch the section on square roots. However, since other areas of math such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are not his area, he is satisfied to go along with the team’s position on addition, specifically 2+2.

Folks, please don’t use this as an excuse to be angry or to try to vent or pile on about climate scientists who have nothing whatever to do with this little joke. I’ve deleted quite a few such posts and will delete any others.

Re: David Davidovics (Aug 6 23:36), the intricate and rapidly morphing knotwork of the CA post before this one, No Dendro Illusion, probably has the links you need: RC’s original review of HSI by Tamino, Keith Kloor’s interview with Gavin, AMac’s herculean work taking on both Tiljander and Scientist.

Keeping up with No Dendro Illusion was like following a high-flying sporting event – commentator Mosher.

Overpeck: Keith we need something more compelling than the Hockey stick
Briffa: 2+2=4.1?
Overpeck: MORE compelling keith
Wigley: McIntyre may have a point on this 2+2=4 thing.
Mann: “Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made.”
Eli rabbet: Spencer made a mistake, therefore, 2+2=5
Amac: 2+2=4
Briffa: I got it, Peck, 2+2=5
Mann: I said that first.
Gavin: In a massive waste of time and money Independent researchers have investigated this uninteresting thing.
Moshpit:
Amman:
Shell Oil: Hulme we gave you 2 million last month and you want another 2 million?
Hulme: Ya, 5 should be enough. Pachauri, promised us 6, so that makes 12.
Shell oil: Who is your accountant?
Hulme: Wei-Chyung Wang, at Suny
Jones: He keeps great records ask Keenan.
Amac:2+2=4.
Deltoid commenter: can I buy a vowel?
Lambert: buy 2 get 2 free
Mann: He doesnt need 5, Tim.

Phil: It is obvious to anybody who isn’t a math denialist that when we say 2 + 2 = 5, we mean 2.5 + 2.5 = 5, if you pay attention to the metadata.
Jim Hansen: Yes, it’s 2.5, we had to adjust the raw data upward to adjust for the fact that it needed to be higher.
Trenbarth: We can’t find the extra 1 and it is a travesty that we can’t!
McIntyre: Phil, please send me a list of your addition tables.
Phil: Why should I, we’ve invested years of time and money into compiling them, why should I send them to you if you are only going to find something wrong with them?
McIntyre: FOIA says so.
Phil: I’m sorry, I’ve lost my addition tables.
McIntyre: ….
Leaker: Psst, Steve….

Russell: Oh what banter! Basic case for 2+2=5 not weakened by any of it.
Oxburgh: Eh? Oh, sorry, dozed off there, missed most of that. Basic case for 2+2=5 not weakened by any of it.
PSU: Just see how much money 2+2=5 attracts! QED.

Mann: Our new paper conclusively proves that 2+2=4, without impacting any of our previous findings.
Mc: Finally! Umm, but you don’t seem to mention my role in bringing this to light.
Gavin: Keerist, there goes Mc again, claiming credit for discovering that 2+2=4 when it’s been part of the scientific literature for roughly ever.

I’m using editorial discretion to cull down posts – successful entries usually adapt to the “voice” of one of the players along the lines of Mosh’s idea – as opposed to using the thread to complain about climate science. OK?

This is an interesting an important posting and especially coming at the time of the Frank paper.

In the engineering world, this is well known. It called “expectation management”. Do not oversell your idea no matter how good it is. The Team oversold the hockey stick and as a result has disappointed its client base. It will have a very difficult time winning them back.

I’m using editorial discretion to cull down posts – successful entries usually adapt to the “voice” of one of the players along the lines of Mosh’s idea – as opposed to using the thread to complain about climate science. OK?

This may not be the most juvenile and peurile topic ever started here, but it must come close. And you are clearly only interested in encouraging trolling. OK?

Old joke, hopefully sufficiently on topic. Adapt the professions as you see fit.

A manager has a job opening and cannot decide among three equally qualified candidates: a geologist, an engineer, and a geophysicist. He decides on a way to do a final evaluation,

He calls the geologist into his office and asks him: “How much is 2 + 2.” The geologist gives him a slightly puzzled look and answers: “4”. The manager thanks him, shows him out, and asks the engineer to come in.

The manager asks the engineer: “How much is 2 + 2.” The engineer whips out a calculator, a slide rule, a note pad, and a pencil. He starts pushing buttons on the calculator, slipping the stick on the slide rule back and forth, and scribbling furiously on the note pad. After about five minutes he answers: “3.99999999999 +/- 0.000000023758.” The manager thanks him, shows him out, and asks the geophysicist to come in.

The manager asks the geophysicist: “How much is 2 + 2.” The geophysicist gets a gleam in his eye. He looks around the office. He goes to the window and closes the blinds. He goes over and opens the door, sneaks a peak out, closes the door and stuffs a throw rug against the cracks in the door. He disconnects the phone. He then leans down and whispers in the managers ear: “What do you want it to be?”

It was a legitimate attempt to show how the addition of two fuzzy number twos creates a situation where the degree of belief in an answer of 5 can become almost as high as 4.

So here is the comment again expanded to show how different fuzzy number two definitions with increasing variances (or S.D.) increases the Degree of Belief in the “wrong” answer (3 or 5). The degree of belief in the “right” answer (4) of course, is always 100%.

This dichotomy in which uncertainty propagates (increases) by applying an arithmetic operator while at the same time, the likelihood of an “off-correct” answer increases, may have led Mann to misunderstand that his answer is less certain not more.

A failure to accept the inherent variances in measured inputs to a model may lead one to accept an increasing degree of belief as evidence of a better answer when in fact what has happened is the distribution of “possible” answers (any of which might be true) has actually widened.

1. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from 1.5 to 2.5 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~0.167

So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from 3 to 5

In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 0.0% and a S.D. of 0.33

2. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from 1.25 to 2.75 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~0.25

So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from 2.5 to 5.5

In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 33.3% and a S.D. of 0.50

3. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from 1.0 to 3.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~0.33

So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from 2 to 6

In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 50.0% and a S.D. of 0.67

4. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from 0.5 to 3.5 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~0.50

So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from 1 to 7

In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 66.7% and a S.D. of 1.00

5. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from 0.0 to 4.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~0.67

So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from 0 to 8

In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 75.0% and a S.D. of 1.33

6. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from -1.0 to 5.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~1.00

So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from -2.0 to 10.0

In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 82.5% and a S.D. of 2.0

7. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from -2.0 to 6.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~1.33

So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from -4.0 to 12.0

In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 88.9% and a S.D. of 2.67

8. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from -3.0 to 7.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~1.67

So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from -6.0 to 14.0

In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 90.0% and a S.D. of 3.33

9. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from -4.0 to 8.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~2.00

So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from -8.0 to 16.0

In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 91.6% and a S.D. of 4.00

Steve:
Listen, I have never said that 2 + 2 does not equal 5. All I want is for the team to show their workings and provide me with their computer code, intermediate results and original values of 2 so that I can check their maths.

Some people say that if the original values of 2 are not correct, the final answer may be even more than 5. I say that we need to investigate 2, because if the answer is more than 5 we really need to know that.

If I were a politician, I would listen to the scientists and take decisions based on 2 + 2 = 5